Allowed

Moideenkutty v. Abraham George

Supreme Court15 Dec 20252025 INSC 14282025 INSC 1428

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges a Kerala High Court order remanding a suit for specific performance to determine set-off. The Supreme Court held the High Court erred in relying on an isolated admission. It restored the trial court's decree granted to the plaintiff who alleged fraudulent concealment of a property mortgage.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment remanding the matter to the trial court set aside; judgment of the trial court restoring refund decree restored.

What the court decided

Moideenkutty versus Abraham George — Specific Performance | Supreme Court (2025)

¶1

2025 INSC 1428

¶2

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶4

MOIDEENKUTTY ….APPELLANT(S)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

ABRAHAM GEORGE ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. The present appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 11^th March, 2022, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam¹ in RFA No.563 of 2014, arising out of Original Suit No.34 of 2010, whereby the High Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 27^th November, 2013, passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Manjeri² . Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court held the

¶11

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2025.12.15 16:19:18 IST Reason:

¶12

1 Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.

¶13

2 Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.

¶14

¶15

appellant³ to be in breach of the agreement (Exh. A- 1); allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent⁴ , and remanded the matter to the trial Court for the limited purpose of examining whether the defendantrespondent had suffered any compensable loss and whether such loss could be set-off against the plaintiff-appellant’s claim.

¶16

Factual Background

¶17

3. The facts relevant and necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal, for the sake of convenience, are mentioned herein. 4. The defendant-respondent entered into an agreement for sale (Exh. A-1) on 10^th September, 2008, undertaking to convey the land⁵ admeasuring Seventy-Seven Acres and Twenty-Six Cents to the plaintiff-appellant for a total consideration of Rs.4,45,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Forty-Five Lakhs only). It is not disputed amongst the contracting parties that in due deference to the contractual stipulation regarding earnest money, the plaintiff-appellant paid the sum of Rs.50,00,000/-

¶18

3 Hereinafter, referred to as the “plaintiff-appellant”.

¶19

4 Hereinafter, referred to as the “defendant-respondent”.

¶20

5 Hereinafter, referred to as the “suit schedule property”.

¶21

¶22

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶23

(Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) in two instalments on 10^th September, 2008, and 10^th October, 2008, to the defendant-respondent. The balance sale consideration was agreed to be tendered in two further tranches on 29^th November, 2008 and 26^th December, 2008, the latter being the date fixed for execution of the sale deed.

¶24

5. Later, the plaintiff-appellant claims to have received information that the defendant-respondent had availed a substantial loan from the Federal Bank, Pandikkadu Branch⁶ , by creating an equitable mortgage over the suit schedule property, a fact which, according to the plaintiff-appellant, was deliberately suppressed by the defendant-respondent contradicting the specific recital in the agreement (Exh. A-1) affirming that the property was free from all liabilities and encumbrances. Upon being confronted, with this anomaly, the defendantrespondent assured the plaintiff-appellant that requisite steps were being taken to discharge the outstanding debt; however, he kept on postponing the matter. The plaintiff-appellant, entertained a

¶25

6 Hereinafter, referred to as the “Bank”.

¶26

¶27

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶28

bona fide belief that the impediments would be resolved and thus awaited the respondent’s response. 6. In the year 2009, the defendant-respondent approached the plaintiff-appellant along with certain mediators and represented that requisite measures had been undertaken to discharge the outstanding liability with the bank and the land would be freed from mortgage at the earliest. To ameliorate the inconvenience caused to the plaintiff-appellant owing to the delay, the defendant-respondent also agreed to reduce the sale consideration by Rs.35,00,000/from the originally agreed amount of Rs.4,45,00,000/-. Acting upon such assurances and understanding, the plaintiff-appellant paid a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash on 17^th August, 2009, and also handed over a post-dated cheque for Rs.3,55,00,000/- drawn on the Federal Bank Limited, Valancherry branch to the defendantrespondent.

¶29

7. However, the plaintiff-appellant came to know that the defendant-respondent had not taken any effective measures to redeem the mortgage and perceived that he was being deceived. Hence, the plaintiff-appellant did not arrange funds for

¶30

¶31

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶32

encashment of the post-dated cheque, which consequently came to be dishonoured for insufficiency of funds.

¶33

8. The plaintiff-appellant asserts that he had always been ready and willing to fulfil his obligations under the contract and that the defendantrespondent had committed breach by his fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the plaintiff-appellant instituted the instant suit (OS No.34 of 2010) seeking refund of the advance amount of Rs.55,00,000/together with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization, and further prayed that the costs be recovered from the defendant-respondent and his assets by creation of a charge over the property.

¶34

9. The defendant-respondent filed a written statement denying the material averments of the plaint. While the execution of the agreement for sale (Exh. A-1) and the receipt of Rs.50,00,000/- as advance were admitted, the defendant-respondent refuted the allegation of having concealed the existence of the loan and the equitable mortgage over the suit schedule property. According to the defendant-respondent, the agreement itself was

¶35

¶36

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶37

executed with a clear understanding that the loan liability with the Bank was to be discharged from the sale consideration, and the plaintiff-appellant was fully informed of this position from the outset of the transaction. It was alleged that as the plaintiffappellant failed to adhere to the schedule of payment stipulated in the agreement (Exh. A-1), the mortgage could not be redeemed and the contract remained unexecuted. The defendant-respondent further pleaded that the Bank exerted pressure upon him to settle the outstanding dues or part with the property, and in that view of the matter, he called upon the plaintiff-appellant to remit the balance consideration to facilitate performance of the contract.

¶38

10. However, as the plaintiff-appellant failed to honour the payment schedule stipulated in the agreement (Exh. A-1), and feeling constrained to liquidate the outstanding liability and avert the Bank’s action of taking over the mortgaged property, the defendant-respondent was compelled to execute a subsequent agreement (Exh. B-8) dated 12^th September, 2009 with a third party, whereby the suit schedule property was sold at a reduced price of

¶39

¶40

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶41

Rs.3,67,50,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Sixty-Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only).

¶42

11. Pursuant to the said arrangement, sale deeds dated 19^th August, 2010 (Exh. B-10) and 31^st August, 2010 (Exh. B-9) came to be executed in favour of the third-party purchaser. The defendant-respondent alleged that he had thereby suffered a financial loss quantified at Rs.77,50,000/- and sought to hold the plaintiff-appellant liable to compensate the same along with interest @ 15% per annum by way of a claim for set-off.

¶43

12. Upon appreciation of the evidence led by both the parties, the trial Court found merit in the plaintiff-appellant’s case that he had been misled into executing the agreement (Exh. A-1) and that the defendant-respondent had suppressed the subsisting mortgage liability over the suit schedule property. It was held that the plaintiff-appellant was justified in withholding further payments under Exh. A-1 in view of such concealment of material facts. The defendantrespondent’s plea that he had suffered a loss of Rs.77,50,000/- owing to a subsequent distress sale of the property was rejected by the trial Court holding that the alleged claim did not constitute a legally

¶44

¶45

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶46

sustainable set-off and was in any event barred by limitation. The suit was accordingly decreed in the following terms: -

¶47

“a). That the plaintiff is entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 65,43,750/- (Rupees Sixty five lakh forty three thousand seven hundred and fifty only) with interest at the rate of 13% per annum from the date of suit till realization from the defendant and his assets.

¶48

b). That the plaintiff is entitled to realize the entire costs of litigation from the defendant.”

¶49

13. In the appeal preferred by the respondent– defendant, the High Court placed substantial reliance on a solitary admission elicited in the crossexamination of plaintiff-appellant (PW-1), wherein he conceded that he had become aware of the bank liability over the suit schedule property on 25^th August, 2008 itself. Proceeding on this solitary premise, the High Court concluded that the plaintiffappellant was fully cognizant of the encumbrance even on the suit schedule property well in advance before execution of the agreement (Exh. A-1) dated 10^th September, 2008. The Court further observed that the plaintiff-appellant did not seek to clarify or explain this aspect in re-examination and, therefore, the foundation of the case pleaded by the plaintiff-

¶50

¶51

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶52

appellant in the plaint stood contradicted by his own admission.

¶53

14. Additionally, the High Court noted that even subsequent to the self-acclaimed discovery of fraud, the plaintiff-appellant continued to act in furtherance of the transaction by paying Rs.5,00,000/- on 20^th July, 2009, by issuing a post-dated cheque for Rs.3,55,00,000/-, and refraining from initiating any legal proceedings for over a year despite the expiry of the contractual period on 26^th December, 2008.

¶54

15. Furthermore, the High Court noted that the plaintiff–appellant himself admitted that he had never inspected the original title deeds of the property prior to executing the agreement (Exh. A-1). The Court rejected the explanation that the defendant– respondent had informed the plaintiff-appellant that the documents were kept in a bank locker and would be shown to him during the course of the transaction. The High Court held that such a plea was wholly untenable, particularly when the agreed sale consideration was Rs. 4,45,00,000/-, an amount that cannot be treated as insignificant. It observed that no ordinarily prudent purchaser would enter into a transaction of such magnitude without verifying the

¶55

¶56

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶57

original title documents or being satisfied about the vendor’s title. This conduct, according to the High Court, was incompatible with the allegation of deception.

¶58

16. On the defendant-respondent’s set-off claim, the High Court held that the same was not barred by limitation. The High Court took note of the defendant-respondent’s concession restricting his monetary claim to the extent of the plaintiffappellant’s suit amount. On this reasoning, the High Court was of the view that the plaintiff-appellant ought to be afforded an opportunity to contest the modified set-off limited to the following aspects: -

¶59

a) whether the defendant-respondent suffered any actionable loss;

¶60

b) if so, the quantification thereof; and

¶61

c) whether such a sum could legitimately be set-off against the plaintiff-appellant’s claim.

¶62

17. Accordingly, the appeal of the defendantrespondent was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the trial Court vide the impugned judgment, in the following terms: -

¶63

“In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the court below are set

¶64

¶65

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶66

aside and the matter is remanded to the court below to consider and adjudicate the aforesaid issues on which there has been no adjudication. Both the parties are at liberty to make necessary additional pleadings, if so advised, on the aforesaid points and also to adduce evidence in support of their respective case. We make it clear that the remand is not an open remand. The questions available for consideration after remand are only whether the defendant has suffered any loss entitling him to damages, if so, the measure of damages, and whether he is entitled to set-off the amount adjudged as damages against the plaint claim. The parties shall appear before the court below on 23/05/2022. The suit being of the year 2010, the· trial court shall make all earnest efforts to dispose of the matter at the earliest.”

¶67

18. The above judgment of the High Court is the subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal by way of special leave.

¶68

Submissions on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant

¶69

19. Shri Raghenth Basant, learned senior counsel representing the plaintiff-appellant invited the Court’s attention to the statement of the plaintiffappellant (PW-1) and more particularly to his crossexamination wherein, on the suggestion put forth on behalf of the defendant-respondent, the plaintiffappellant stated that he came to know about the availability of the property from one Raveendran and

¶70

¶71

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶72

went to the house of the defendant-respondent for the first time, on 5^th September, 2008. The plaintiffappellant further clarified that he did not insist on production of the original title deeds at that stage, as the same are generally required to be verified at the time of execution of the sale agreement.

¶73

20. Shri Basant further submitted that a plausible explanation was given by the plaintiff-appellant for this omission stating that he bona fide accepted the version of the defendant-respondent that the original title deeds were lying in the bank locker.

¶74

21. Shri Basant urged that the abstract admission as appearing in the cross-examination of the plaintiffappellant that he became aware of the bank liability on 25^th August, 2008, is apparently an inadvertent error/anomaly, inasmuch as the parties admittedly never met before 5^th September, 2008. Thus, the plaintiff-appellant could have had no idea about the property of the plaintiff-appellant before that date, and hence, imputing prior knowledge (on 25^th August, 2008) of the encumbrance to the plaintiffappellant is absolutely uncalled for.

¶75

22. He urged that the defendant-respondent realized that he was on the wrong side of the law,

¶76

¶77

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶78

which inference is fortified from the fact that the consideration amount was subsequently reduced by Rs.35,00,000/- owing to the defendant-respondent’s failure to disclose about the encumbrance and redeem the mortgage at the time of entering into the transaction.

¶79

23. Learned senior counsel further drew our attention to the following admissions made by the defendant-respondent in his cross-examination: -

¶80

“The contents of Ext. A1 Agreement are correct. I entered into the agreement after fully agreeing with the contents of the said agreement.

¶81

I accepted amounts even after the period of Ext. A1 Agreement only because I wanted to somehow sell the property and clear the bank liability.

¶82

The day I accepted the cheque, my liability to the bank was approximately Rs. 2.6 crores. When I entered into Ext. A1 Agreement, my liability to the bank was approximately Rs. 2.5 crores. The money received from PW1– I have not used the same to repay the bank.

¶83

The fact that the property was being sold to clear the liability to the bank does not find mention in Ext. A1.

¶84

PW1 sent me a notice. The notice was sent stating that the advance amount should be

¶85

¶86

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶87

returned to me. In the said notice, it was stated that I did not mention about the fact that the property was mortgaged with the bank to PW1. I did not send a reply to that notice. I was at the hospital. I was at the hospital for almost one month. Thereafter, after being discharged from the hospital, I did not think of sending a reply.”

¶88

24. His emphasis was on the above admissions made by the defendant-respondent in crossexamination that he did not use the monies received from the plaintiff-appellant towards liquidation of the loan due to the bank and that a legal notice was issued by the plaintiff-appellant seeking refund of the advance, specifically alleging suppression of the subsisting mortgage, to which the defendantrespondent did not furnish any reply.

¶89

25. He thus, urged that the High Court committed grave error in facts as well as in law while setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court and in remanding the matter to the trial Court on the limited aspect of determining the quantum of damages allegedly payable to the defendantrespondent under the claim of set-off.

¶90

¶91

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶92

Submissions on behalf of the defendantrespondent

¶93

26. Per contra , Shri V. Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendantrespondent, contended that the admission of the plaintiff-appellant in his cross-examination, indicating that he had knowledge of the subsisting mortgage as early as 25^th August, 2008, must be read against him. On this basis, it was urged that the High Court rightly rejected the plaintiff-appellant’s claim and committed no infirmity in remanding the matter to the trial Court for adjudication of the quantum of set-off allegedly payable to the defendantrespondent. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal and affirmation of the impugned judgment.

¶94

Discussion and Analysis

¶95

27. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel at the bar and have gone through the impugned judgment(s) and the material available on record. 28. The following facts are admitted from record: -

¶96

(1)That the execution and the contents of the agreement for sale (Exh. A-1) dated 10^th

¶97

¶98

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶99

September, 2008 have been unequivocally admitted by the defendant-respondent in his evidence;

¶100

(2)That the defendant-respondent did not set up a case either in his set-off claim or in his evidence that he had provided the information of the prior mortgage/encumbrance on the suit schedule property to the plaintiff-appellant on 25^th August, 2008;

¶101

(3)That even as per the defendant-respondent’s own case, the parties had no interaction prior to September, 2008, and thus, the defendant-respondent does not assert that he had ever met the plaintiff-appellant before that period.

¶102

29. Thus, the undue emphasis laid by the High Court on an abstract sentence appearing in the cross-examination of the plaintiff-appellant, suggesting prior knowledge of the bank liability over the suit schedule property, was totally misplaced and uncalled for. The High Court ignored the vital admissions as appearing in the version of the

¶103

¶104

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶105

defendant-respondent that the contents of the agreement (Exh. A-1) were unquestionable and correct in their entirety.

¶106

30. Moreover, the fact that before instituting the suit, the plaintiff-appellant sent a notice to the defendant-respondent specifically mentioning about the concealment of the mortgage, to which the defendant-respondent chose not to furnish any reply, clearly establishes that the case projected in the setoff, that the plaintiff-appellant was aware of the encumbrance on the suit schedule property from the inception, was nothing but an afterthought, devised solely to defeat the plaintiff-appellant’s legitimate claim for refund.

¶107

31. Furthermore, the fact that pursuant to the plaintiff-appellant raising this issue with the defendant-respondent, he agreed to reduce the sale consideration by a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- is also a significant fact reflecting on the conduct of the defendant-respondent which convinces us about the deceit practiced by him upon the plaintiff-appellant. It stands to reason that, upon being exposed, the defendant-respondent was compelled to offer a substantial reduction in the agreed sale price, which

¶108

¶109

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶110

unmistakably reflects his culpable intent in concealing the material factum of encumbrance on the suit schedule property.

¶111

32. We feel that the aforesaid conclusion⁷ of the High Court is unjustified in the peculiar facts of the case. There was nothing unnatural in the explanation offered by the plaintiff-appellant that he relied on the assurance of the defendant-respondent that the original title deeds would be handed over at the time of execution of the sale deed. It may be noted that the advance amount paid by the plaintiff-appellant was around 10% of the total sale consideration and thus, it cannot be said, unexceptionally, that the plaintiff-appellant would not have entered into the agreement without having a look at the original title deeds. It is a common practice for landowners to keep original title deeds in the bank lockers for security purposes. Hence, the explanation offered by the plaintiff-appellant for not insisting on the inspection of the original title deeds, at the time of entering into the agreement, was reasonable and justified.

¶112

7 Supra para No.15.

¶113

¶114

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

¶115

33. In wake of the above discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the trial Court committed no error whatsoever in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffappellant. The impugned judgment rendered by the High Court does not stand to scrutiny and is, thus, hereby set aside, and the judgment of the trial Court is restored.

¶116

34. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶117

35. Decree be prepared accordingly.

¶118

36. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶119

….……………………J. (VIKRAM NATH)

¶120

...…………………….J.

¶121

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

¶122

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 15, 2025.

¶123

¶124

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023

Moideenkutty v. Abraham George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Moideenkutty v. Abraham George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sohanvir@ Sohanvir Dhama versus State of U.P.

Sonia Virk versus Rohit Watts

Suresh Sahu versus the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

The State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary versus Milkiyat Singh

Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) versus the State of Gujarat

Binod Kumar Pandey @Vinod Kumar Pandey versus the State of Jharkhand